AIO & AIP v Department of Human Services, Community Services [2012] NSWADT 87

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: AIO & AIP v Department of Human Services, Community Services [2012] NSWADT 87 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 10 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Community Services Division Before: S Higgins, Deputy President Decision: 1.The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this application. 2.On or before 17 May 2012, the respondent to file and serve, pursuant to section 58 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, a copy of every document or part of a document that is in its possession, or control, that it considers to be relevant to the determination of this application. 3.The application is listed for further directions on 24 May 2012 at 3.30pm. Catchwords: Review of decision to remove children from care of authorised carer - jurisdiction - whether decision to remove children from a short-term placement is a reviewable decision Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: AIO & AIP (Applicants) Department of Human Services, Community Services (Respondent) Representation: AIO & AIP (Applicants in person) D Menser (Respondent) File Number(s): 124005 Publication restriction: S 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

REasons for decision 1Due to the sensitivity of these proceedings, in these reasons for decision the applicants are referred to by the pseudonym AIO and AIP (see also section 126 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act)). The children, the subject of these proceedings are also not named or identified. 2The applicants, AIO and AIP, seek review of a decision of the respondent to remove two children who had been placed in their care on 23 September 2011. At the time the children were placed into the care of the applicants they were aged three years and six months respectively. Both children were placed into care during March 2011. On 11 August 2011, on the application of the Minister, the Children's Court made final orders allocating parental responsibility for both children to the Minister until they reach 18 years of age. 3The applicants are authorised carers under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (the Care Act). They were authorised through Catholic Care and the placement of the children with the applicants was through this organisation. 4On 23 December 2011, the applicants were informed that the children were to be transitioned to a long-term placement with relative carers who had been assessed and authorised by the respondent. On the same day, the applicants sought internal review of this decision. On 6 January 2012, the applicants were informed of the internal review decision, which affirmed the original decision that had been made. The children were removed from the care of the applicants on 12 January 2012. The applicants contend that the children had been placed with them as a long-term placement. They asserted it was a stable placement in which the children's needs of 'attention, love and a nurturing environment was met' and their move to an overcrowded placement with six children would not meet their needs. 5The respondent does not question the level of care the applicants provided to the children. However, it contends that the placement of the children with the applicants was a short-term placement and by reason of this the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicants' application. The respondent also contends that the current placement is long term and accords with the principles set out in section 9 of the Care Act and the respondent's Placement of Siblings in Out-of-Home Care Policy (the Policy). In this regard I note that the children have been placed with the carer of their half sibling. 6By consent, the parties agreed that this matter should be determined as a preliminary issue and that it should be determined on the papers. 7In my view, for the reasons set out below, the contentions of the respondent are misconceived and the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear and determine this application.